http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12845
--- Comment #29 from Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> 2011-06-17 03:01:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #28)
> > It's not a big deal that they both be there though
>
> It is, though, since the spec needs to define behavior for the "superclass"
> functions/getters/setters being applied to the "subclass" and currently it may
> or my not do so in sane ways due to the assumption that such things can't
> happen.
I've been assuming that the superclass version of the function would always
keep working (or at least that the specification defines it so that it does).
So you could still do
// maybe this alerts "a"
alert(Superclass.prototype.theFunction.call(theObject));
// and this alerts "b"
theObject.theFunction();
If we are in the state that calling the superclass function would violate some
invariants because the specification assumes that it cannot be called on the
object, then that really would be a problem. I don't think that's the case,
though.
--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.